Civil Appeal 811/23 Emanuel Ben Haim v. Tishrei Furniture Ltd.

Civil Appeal 811/23

Judge Yael Willner:

1. Is the recording of a defendant's speech, which includes an admission of the existence of a plaintiff's right, a "written" confession, within the meaning of the term? In section 9 of the Statute of Limitations, 5718-1958 (hereinafter: The Statute of Limitations or The Law)?

This is the question that is at the center of the appeal before us, against the judgment of the Central-Lod District Court (Judge C Shani) in the bag Civilian 33371-01-22 [Nevo] of December 1, 2022, in which the scope of the appellants' claim against respondents 2-3 was dismissed out of hand due to the statute of limitations.

Factual Background and Legal Proceedings

2. On January 16, 2022, the appellants filed a claim in the sum of ILS 2,550,000 against the respondents, claiming the existence of a debt that was not paid on time. In the lawsuit it was claimed that during the years 2012-2013, appellant 1 lent to respondent 1 (hereinafter: The CompanyFunds in the total amount of ILS 1,200,000; and that it was agreed between the parties that the full amount of the loan would be repaid on April 30, 2013.  It was further agreed that from November 2012 until the date of repayment of such loan, the Company - or the other respondents - will bear monthly interest payments in the amount of ILS 50,000.  In addition, the statement of claim claimed that on September 27, 2012, respondents 2-4 signed a personal guarantee, unlimited in time, for the company's debts to appellant 1 and for the repayment of a promissory note made by the company in his favor; and that until October 10, 2014, the respondents had paid appellant 1 the sum of only ILS 674,360, out of the total debt.
3. On the other hand, respondents 2-3 (hereinafter: Respondents) filed separate motions to dismiss the claim in limine, in which it was argued, inter alia, that the claim was time-barred. The appellants submitted responses to these motions, to which they attached transcripts of recordings of conversations that took place between the parties on April 12, 2021 and June 7, 2021 (hereinafter, respectively): The Recordings and Transcripts).  According to the appellants, the transcripts of the conversations show that the respondents admitted to the existence of the alleged debt, and therefore, accordingly Section 9 According to the law, the statute of limitations for the grounds specified in the statement of claim must be recounted as of the date of the confession.
4. In a hearing held in the District Court on July 12, 2022, the parties reached a procedural agreement, according to which the decision on the said statute of limitations claim "will focus on the legal question of whether the recording constitutes a written document for the purpose of Section 9 Law The Statute of Limitations(p. 2 of the minutes of the hearing of July 12, 2022, paras.  27-28).
5. As stated, on December 1, 2022, the District Court dismissed out of hand the claim against the respondents due to the statute of limitations, and ordered the dismissal of the claim against respondents 1 and 4. As for the question of whether a recording that records things said orally constitutes a "written" confession for the purpose of Section 9 Law The Statute of Limitations, it was held that the language of the section leads to the conclusion that the written requirement is substantive, and not purely evidentiary.  It was emphasized that against the background of the need to ensure that such a confession would be "serious and informed, and not one made verbally and externally", when the party admitting the existence of a right is not aware of the recording of the conversation, it is not possible to conclude that he understands the meaning of his confession, or to learn about his final opinion about it.  It was further emphasized that there is no need to decide in our case whether a conversation recorded with the consent of the parties to it is a "report", for the purpose of Section 9 to the law, since it was not claimed that the recording of the respondents was made with their knowledge.  In view of all this, it was determined that the recording in question does not fulfill the written requirement in the said section; and that therefore the appellants' claim against the respondents has become statute of limitations.  Finally, the District Court dismissed the claim against respondents 1 and 4 due to inaction.  It was noted that despite clarifications requested by the court, the appellants did not act to amend their request for a judgment in the absence of a defense.

Hence the appeal before us, which is focused, as stated, on the question of whether the recordings in question satisfy the requirement of "writing" in section 9 to the statute of limitations.